Nah. Jesus went to lengths to be deliberately apolitical; probably so that in the future, people wouldn't try to use him for affirmation of their own or the degradation of another.
and the point I am trying to bring home to you is that
A) this is a hyperbolic and ridiculous comparison of two things that are not of the same type. you could make the exact same comparison (that both wish to put their ideology into governance) between Democrats and Nazis.
and
B) you make yourself look like a fool by defending it. you are smarter and better than this, cap.
You should let the Tea Party know that Jesus is apolitical because I really dont think that they agree with you. They seem to think that jesus/god is only on their side.
And I think you have shown yourself to look like a fool by not recognizing and even denying the ideological similarities.
Looks like we are at an impasse. Let's go get a beer. Nothing's cooler than two fools slamming down a pitcher of bubbly.arty
most folks tend to. however here I suspect you are confusing a celebration with the Christian values of the founding with either an advocation of theocracy or a claim of Divine Mandate.
as for me, I prefer Abraham Lincolns' reversal of the matter: "The question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His."
Lets not kid ourselves there are many Tea Partiers that think that Christian morals must be mandated by the Government or the Government is invalid and doomed to fail.
And I have heard many times now from Christian's that assert that there are more Christian's than non-Christians in America and that the majority is all that matters and everyone else should shut up or get out.
The problem is that the Tea Party is Christian libertarianism not just libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals are permitted maximum freedom under God's law. In effect the Tea Party is fighting for a theology. You cannot enact a gods law without a theological approach period. So in reality gods law cannot be used as a bases of our laws since it would clearly go against the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If you make any law based on Gods law you have gone against the Constitution.
Yes thats the official position but again lets not kid ourselves that that position in reality is what is being peddled by the Tea Party. Tea Party Fort Lauderdale: The Law of God and Public Policy - What is the purpose of law?You are oversimplifying. They want the law to reflect Christian values, and they want the American body politic to continue to honor God, which is very different from the government imposing Christian morals. In fact, in as much as the law currently imposes Christian morals, they are generally in favor of trimming it back.
Consider, for example, the extent to which the government currently imposes the Christian virtue of charity.
Oh no not the asinine argument about democracy again. Lol I did not argue for anything I said that most Christians feel that since they are the majority that everyone else should shut up and get out of their way.Then you have heard fools - we live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
. Nope did not say anything near "Freedom from Religion". Not even sure why you must share that tired parroted slogan here.This claim is incorrect - legislators can have any personal motivation that they like when voting for or against a law, and the people may have the same when voting for or against referendum. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion, as the Founders (who used Congress to declare days of fasting and prayer) well knew
I am not saying anything about personal views. Logically of course no one could dictate what someone else thinks. I am saying that you base laws on religious ideals then it becomes a legal issue. For example same sex marriage or abortion are both opposed to not one any actual legal might but by religious might alone. Hence why it is so difficult for anyone to overturn the existing abortion laws or new same sex marriage laws.That is incorrect. Lots of decisions have been made based upon what was felt to be the values of Christianity. Having a social safety net, for example. The Civil Rights Movement was explicitly Church-organized and led. Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. etc.
Yes thats the official position but again lets not kid ourselves that that position in reality is what is being peddled by the Tea Party.
...Support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right. An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about "the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right"; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree.3 More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it)....
Roughly half of Tea Party backers said their religious beliefs are the most important influence on their views of gay marriage (53%) and abortion (46%).... By contrast, 37% of registered voters overall cited their religious beliefs as the most important influence on their views of same-sex marriage and 28% cited religion as the primary influence on their views of abortion...
And dont be silly charity is not solely a Christian virtue.
Oh no not the asinine argument about democracy again. Lol I did not argue for anything I said that most Christians feel that since they are the majority that everyone else should shut up and get out of their way.
Nope did not say anything near "Freedom from Religion".
I am not saying anything about personal views
I am saying that you base laws on religious ideals then it becomes a legal issue.
For example same sex marriage or abortion are both opposed to not one any actual legal might but by religious might alone.
Hence why it is so difficult for anyone to overturn the existing abortion laws or new same sex marriage laws.
Speaking of over simplifying: Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. Each of these issues were much more involved than just religious inspired endeavors
Or if you insist they were all illegal actions.
The Civil Rights movement is much more complicated than just being a religious act. In fact sooner or later without any religious influence it was bound to happen. You just cannot treat sections of Americans like **** and not disrespect the Constitution.
Let me clue you in I am not on the Left at all. And I am friends with many people on the Right. Having these friends on Facebook unfortunately has exposed me to a great deal of Tea Party spam. Perhaps you can believe that the Tea Party is not a cover for a push for a theology but hey I am not blind.
Should I link photos and articles that prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt? DO you want to hear Tea Party leader espousing Christianity as a requirement for all Americans?
Lol no I am not using conspiracy theorist logic. Do you not know that the Tea Party is a more radical extension of Conservatism. Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Or if you prefer: Tea Party Movement - Conservapedia Conservepedia lists the Tea Party as Conservatism.oh yes, deep down in their secret heart of hearts they think this.
:roll: that's unfalsifiable conspiracy-theory logic.
While Social Conservatism certainly has heavy overlap with the Tea Party, the two are in no way synonymous.
Spin things much? 69% of registered voters who agreed with the religious right also said they agreed with the Tea Party. It hardly matters since 81% of those in the Tea Party identify themselves as Christian's. http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-c...-the-2010-Election-American-Values-Survey.pdfhalf. vice a third for the regular populace. Tea Party Backers have a differential of all of 16-18% off of registered voters, and from that you are creating a whole.
no but it is a Christian one, and that is the predominant one that informed that policy debate. There weren't exactly a lot of references to the zakat.
Seriously I am not the one making the claim so I am not the one that needs to explain their views. And I suggest going having a look around in the Religious Discussions board.Then I think you should provide A) some support for that rather ridiculous claim and B) some explanation of how the simple-majority-rules concept you have outlined is not democracy.
I was saying that I didnt mention the term freedom from religion I said that I did not even mention or imply the concept. Are you calling me a liar?No but that is what you described.
No that is the argument that you are trying to argue against but it is not my argument.On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing. Specifically you are saying that someone's religious views or morals should not inform their political decision-making.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.. no it's not and
2. when you base your support/vote for or against a law on your values ideals and morals, then those are the personal views you are bringing to bear.
However, color me curious. Both the Abolition and Civil Rights movements were explicitly religious in nature. Are you arguing that they are illegitimate?
Cleaver choice of words there, by saying "On the contrary" you believed that you can assign your strawman argument onto my argument. I fully support state rights. And yes the legal system is involved in both of those topics. Constitutionally though same sex marriage and abortion are legal. So the argument comes back to a religious movement trying to impose on the Constitution religious views. The Constitution is entirely an legal document not governed by personal opinion. Not saying that personal opinions are dicouraged but if you are going to challenge the Constitution you better have a legal basis not just personal opinions.On the contrary, in our system of government the states have rights, among them is the right to largely define whom they shall issue marriage licenses to, how they shall handle divorce, and under what conditions.
Thank you for your opinion.It is difficult for someone to overturn our idiotic abortion laws because of a badly written poor decision by the supreme court four decades ago. When the same-sex movement decides to start taking their case to the people (who are sovereign) they will see much better results than when they attempt to ride roughshod over them.
Yes things are driven in many cases by religion but they must pass the legal tests they are not special. American Government has made mistakes but the framers were smart enough to create a system that is resilient enough to take such screw ups in stride. Of course that takes a lot of work like all good things. Abolishing the Prohibition Amendment was was fixing an error caused by allowing personal opinion to supersede the Constitution. Prohibition of alcohol needed an Constitutional Amendment because without changing the Constitution banning alcohol was unconstitutional. In fact the Eighteenth Amendment still exists but has no power since the Twenty-first Amendment makes it powerless. Personally I find the Eighteenth Amendment a perfect example of why personal opinions should not rule this country and leave that power to the Constitution. I also see prohibition as a warning sign of what can happen when religion gets too much power in our Government.Actually each one of those - most especially prohibition and abolition - were explicitly driven by religion. The faith of the voters and the legislators in each of those instances was powerful in informing their votes, and in the case of those particular two, overwhelmingly so.
I am a debater I encourage criticism but only on my actual arguments not strawman arguments. Case in point your personal opinions are your own opinions of course they steer us in our decision making. But you have to take in account that other people have different opinions especially if you are a Representative of the people. If you want to stay in office you will not make heavily personally biased decisions despite what the people that you represent want. Those that do ignore the people find themselves not serving the people long.I like it. As soon as your claim that religion should not inform political movements is demonstrated to produce results anathema to modern America, you declare it "complicated" and therefore you are immune from criticism.
Easy enough. Just because there is alot of religion in the Tea Party doesn't make it "just a religiously inspired endeavour". The Tea Party is "much more complicated than just being a religious act."
The Tea Party is significantly less religious in nature than the Civil Rights or the Abolition movement.
no, it seems in fact you are more of the logical fallacy variety - you have looked at a sub-portion and extrapolated to the whole without supporting evidence.
Please post those videos since I do not like the DNC either. Though it makes me wonder why you should mention the Democrat parties exploits to a an Independent as if I would care? Did you not read where I asserted unconditionally that I was not on the Left nor even leaning Left? But I guess I should not be surprised that you would not be able to do anything but assume that if someone does not agree with you that they should obviously be your traditional enemy. Guess what I am very anti-Socialist/Communist etc. Just ask some of your Socialist playmatesi'm sure you could find some. would you like me to post video of DNC delegates supporting banning corporate profit as proof that the Democrat Party's secret goal is socialism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?